Iron Heroes threaten my GM style of low magic items...

[Bastoche]

I think you are mistaken. Check out 'Styles of Play' (starting on page 7 in the 3.5 DMG) before stating that you know what "D&D's assumption" is.

I think it's the sickest joke of the whole DMG. They say all over the place "here's how to play the game" by describing what I describe. And the "style of play" is a section that translate into "How to fit a square in a round hole".

My own experiences lead me to disagree here. I regularly play and run stuff with a variety of playing styles represented. It's all good, so long as everyone has (and uses) the opportunity to immerse themselves in their character, and most of all have fun doing so.

You are exactly proving my point. I guess you do not understand what I define as "playing style". You say "so long as everyone has (and uses) the opportunity to immerse themselves in their character" this IS your group's playing style! yet "and most of all have fun doing so". If "most" is not "everyone" then those who are not part of the "most" are not playing at their full potential. And if these guys took the game more seriously, they certainly would stop playing with you and find a groupe that match their playing style.

I currently play in a groups that play "true" D&D 3E in forgotten realms. During that campaign, I had LOADS of frustration and couldn't understand what frustrated me until I went beyond ENworld and informed myself better about role playing games (not saying that enworlders do not know any better, it's just that I had to hear other points of view). Then it was all clear to me. We played 3E as RAW as could be and I found out that it is not my favorite playing style. I discovered what caused me frustration. I talked about it with the group and decided to leave the campaign. Players decided that if I was to leave, they didn't want to play anymore. Talk talk become mature and stop being anal. I decided to keep playing. I'm enjoying playing with my friends but I do not enjoy the game at all. I play it for them. Next campaign I'll suggest them a new system to get out of the D&D mold and see if they prefer it. Now that I understand this, I can play the game correctly.

Every RPGs have social rules beyond the rules book yet few if any RPG book addresses these most important issues. For example, in the DMG, it's assume that nobody "cheats" the dice, yet the DM has to privilege to do so to fit "his" campaign. That's a social issue. Games like GRUPS usually assumes that the DM do not cheat.

So my point is that playing in a campaign that does not fit your style cause frustration and sources of unenjoyment. It doesn't mean you can't have fun. And just like my running shoe example, everyone could be having fun by changing to a different game instead of most.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think it's the sickest joke of the whole DMG. They say all over the place "here's how to play the game" by describing what I describe. And the "style of play" is a section that translate into "How to fit a square in a round hole".

Fair enough. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, what about the large number of adventures put out for use with 'pure' D&D rules, that are not 'round pegs'? And so on.

You are exactly proving my point. I guess you do not understand what I define as "playing style". You say "so long as everyone has (and uses) the opportunity to immerse themselves in their character" this IS your group's playing style! yet "and most of all have fun doing so". If "most" is not "everyone" then those who are not part of the "most" are not playing at their full potential. And if these guys took the game more seriously, they certainly would stop playing with you and find a groupe that match their playing style.

Uh, 'most of all' is an expression, shorthand for 'most important of all' I guess. I did not mean 'most of the players as opposed to all of them'. I meant all of them. As for the playing style bit - no. That isn't a playing style. Probably a poor choice of wording on my behalf, given the response I could've predicted. I don't see everyone being in character as anything less or more than roleplaying (the playing of roles, i.e. character roles). The way that the players play their characters varies quite a bit, however. This is what I meant. Also, some are slightly less or slightly more concerned with simultaneously keeping track of the game system. And so on.

 

[Bastoche]

Fair enough. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, what about the large number of adventures put out for use with 'pure' D&D rules, that are not 'round pegs'? And so on.

They are running with sandals. That is my point. The can do it and if they're having fun while doing it, all the better. However I try to point out they they most probably would have more fun finding a proper suited game (or lose less time house ruling).

Uh, 'most of all' is an expression, shorthand for 'most important of all' I guess. I did not mean 'most of the players as opposed to all of them'. I meant all of them.

Well good! That means all players go the game to have fun by aiming at the same goal. Not everyone has fun aiming for the same goal. Some have fun by bashing monsters, other have fun by playing their character as good as possible according to the imagined universe's inner logic and others have fun by having their characters going through internal hardship/change.

As for the playing style bit - no. That isn't a playing style. Probably a poor choice of wording on my behalf, given the response I could've predicted. I don't see everyone being in character as anything less or more than roleplaying (the playing of roles, i.e. character roles). The way that the players play their characters varies quite a bit, however.

You can be roleplaying while not playing "in character" and then I'm not sure if to you "playing in character" means mimicking the character's voice while playing and/or never taking a narrator stance.

Example 1: playing "in character" as in actor stance:

Player says to GM: "Well, baron! We meet at last! You have made enough people suffer! Prepare to face death".

Example 2: playing in narrator stance:

Player says to GM: "My character tells your BBEG that he will meet his end by my sword or something along those lines. Roll initiative".

In both cases, you are playing a role. The level of "immersion" is different but in both cases it's roleplaying.

Roleplaying could also be imagining a story about characters collectively with the players. The "role" of the character doesn't necessarily needs to have an inner logic other than "If my character did X it would make a great story!". For example, many people have asked "Why didn't the giant eagles in LOTR didn't simply fly over mount doom with frodo to drop the ring in and be done with it?". Assuming you were roleplaying that story in a give with an arbitrary ruleset and depending on your playing style, people could answer:

A 3E D&D (as I assume it to be) DM could say "Well it wouldn't be a very good challenge and wouldn't be worth any XP. Since it's my campaign and it all revolve around getting the ring in Mordor, I wouldn't allow it!". In such a game, the DM would forbid the action for metagaming reasons (I didn't planned the campaign like that, it's not a good challenge worth XP, etc) and would (or not) find a satisfactory explanation for the players either out or in game. For example he could fudge the diplomacy DC with the eagles in order to have them not accept or he could come to a plausible explanation as to why it couldn't happen.

A GRUPS player would argue that it's not logical. The setting would be such that many in-game reasons makes that story making that impossible. Or if the setting is such that it could be possible, it would just happen like that and they'd be done with it! The point for them is no matter the answer to the question, the answer would be completely given by purely in-game considerations. It would emanate from the imagined world's inner logic/reality emulation.

A Riddle of steel player will most probably not think of such a solution because it would be motivated by any of his spiritual attirbutes. First he would think it wouldn't make such a good story. Second, he would most probably be struggling with the question "Should I keep the ring to myself to do good (a question Gandalf, Boromir and others asked themselves!!!) or should I accept it's inner evilness and destroy it?" For them keeping it or not is unimportant. What's important is juggling until the very end of the campaign with the possibility of falling over or not. In his case, the "roleplaying" consideration are not about "playing my character (assuming a role) well" but rather "how can I play my character to generate a cool story?".

That's the "gaming style" I'm talking about. Monopoly is a role playing game and you're not playing a clearly defined character. You assume the role of "someone" buying lands and building houses and hotels in order to make money.

"The way they [the players] play their character varies" is not related to what I call "gaming style". Playing them "well" or not, playing them as magic loving or not or as "powergamers" or munchkin is not "playing style". Playing style is "what makes your game fun?". For most D&D players, it's "overcoming challenges while butt-kicking evil". 3E assumes that. And the "fun" part comes from both the playing stategies in order to be efficient in face of the dice gamble. Even though nobody wants to admit it for political correctness reasons, 3E is actually players vs DM (via his monsters and traps and so on). It assumes fairness to make everything fun.

For riddle of steel player, "what makes the game fun?" is answering the question "what is worth fighting for?" and it's done via the spiritual attirbutes. It makes the game feel completly different than a GRUPS game or a D&D game.

For GRUPS players, "what makes the game fun?" is "how can my made up character can be perfectly played (as an actor) in an as credible fake universe as possible". For them, having a halfing with 3s in every score is not important. What's important is if you have a low int score, your character can't come up with clever ideas. And that what they like.

Also, some are slightly less or slightly more concerned with simultaneously keeping track of the game system. And so on.

"game system" is vague since it includes too many concept. It includes mechanics which in itself does not make the game. It ususally includes the setting, etc. Some "game systems" are better suited to some playing styles than others. That's what I'm repeating over and over again.

 

[Zelgar]

It has been clearly stated around this forum, that if people are doing X, Y or Z, then they are not playing D&D like it is supposed to be played. Unless these people are the designers of the game, all of these statements are only their opinions, NOT FACT. I’ll agree that the D&D rules have several assumptions (e.g., mid-high level of magic, medieval European setting, good vs. evil), but that does not mean that every game has to be set up in that manner. Of course, the more the game deviates from the basic model, the more work there is for the DM.

It has been suggested that D&D should not be played in favor of IH, True d20, Conan OGL, etc. I am sorry to say to all you complainers, but all of these games are just D&D in disguise. I do not see much difference in a DM with house rules than the alternate rules presented in the d20/OGL derivatives or even “official” game books (e.g., splat-books, campaign sourcebooks), except the published material probably has been reviewed & play-tested to a greater degree than the DM’s house rules.

A DM has every right to limit anything within their game, but they must be willing to tell the players at the start. I think any of the following items should be mentioned at the beginning of the game:
1. Level of magic in the game
2. Heroic vs. Realistic game
3. Roll Playing vs. Role Playing
4. Any limits within the game (e.g., classes, races, feats, prestige classes)
5. Any special rules within the game (e.g., multi-classing, spells, spell lists)

As long as the players know how the games is to be played from the beginning and that the game doesn’t become unbalanced (e.g., if playing in a low-magic setting, the DM needs to be careful to avoid the magic using PC’s from overshadowing the other PC’s) but continue to be fun the DM is doing his job right. Are they playing D&D, I’d say yes, but DM X’s version of D&D.

Zelgar

 

[Bastoche]

It has been clearly stated around this forum, that if people are doing X, Y or Z, then they are not playing D&D like it is supposed to be played. Unless these people are the designers of the game, all of these statements are only their opinions, NOT FACT. I’ll agree that the D&D rules have several assumptions (e.g., mid-high level of magic, medieval European setting, good vs. evil), but that does not mean that every game has to be set up in that manner. Of course, the more the game deviates from the basic model, the more work there is for the DM.

Then what IS D&D? What's in common among these example you give (beside the XY and Z)?. That would point out I'm shooting opinion. But I'm not. The "facts" I state are: D&D as thought out by the designers should be played a certain way and that is what defines what "D&D" actually is. As soon as you house rule, you're not playing D&D. You're playing your own game. AND THAT'S OK!

It has been suggested that D&D should not be played in favor of IH, True d20, Conan OGL, etc. I am sorry to say to all you complainers, but all of these games are just D&D in disguise. I do not see much difference in a DM with house rules than the alternate rules presented in the d20/OGL derivatives or even “official” game books (e.g., splat-books, campaign sourcebooks), except the published material probably has been reviewed & play-tested to a greater degree than the DM’s house rules.

There's another huge difference (among many many mores). Wasted time. Why house rule a game for many many hours (days) and then figuring out in actual play that most of these house rules doesn't work so well (or even works well) when you can pick up EXCATLY what you want off the shelf? That's an opinion here though.

A DM has every right to limit anything within their game, but they must be willing to tell the players at the start. I think any of the following items should be mentioned at the beginning of the game:
1. Level of magic in the game
2. Heroic vs. Realistic game
3. Roll Playing vs. Role Playing
4. Any limits within the game (e.g., classes, races, feats, prestige classes)
5. Any special rules within the game (e.g., multi-classing, spells, spell lists)

As long as the players know how the games is to be played from the beginning and that the game doesn’t become unbalanced (e.g., if playing in a low-magic setting, the DM needs to be careful to avoid the magic using PC’s from overshadowing the other PC’s) but continue to be fun the DM is doing his job right. Are they playing D&D, I’d say yes, but DM X’s version of D&D.

Zelgar

True if you speak of a D&D DM. But a GM in an arbitrary system does not always have the right to house rule however HE please and only finds players that comply to HIS ruling. For some games/people it's ok, for others it's not. And guess what, there is RPG out there where the GM has NO power over the direction of the plot/story >gasp!< If that's a derivation of D&D and not a completly different game, I give up!

 

[Voadam]

For GRUPS players, "what makes the game fun?" is "how can my made up character can be perfectly played (as an actor) in an as credible fake universe as possible". For them, having a halfing with 3s in every score is not important. What's important is if you have a low int score, your character can't come up with clever ideas. And that what they like.

Wow. Under these definitions of the games I guess I have never played D&D or GURPS despite all the times I thought I was. Despite playing lots of games with the GURPS system I was never a GURPS player as you describe them. Despite playing and running a lot of games with the 3e D&D rules, I was rarely if ever playing D&D as you describe it (our group was rarely exactly five people).

What bizaare technical definitions you have of RPGs.

Even if he's not playing your technical definition of D&D, IH does not necessarily do lower magic item game of D&D better than a lower magic item game of D&D.

Different systems, different pros and cons of going either way.

 

[ruleslawyer]

If you can find some mundane, equipment-independent way of giving a 6th-level fighter the bonuses he would have got from magic equipment (say, an innate +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage with any weapon he wields, an innate +2 enhancement bonus to AC with any armor he uses, an innate +1 dodge bonus to AC and an innate +2 resistance bonus to saves in place of a +1 weapon, +2 armor, a +1 ring of deflection and a +2 cloak of protection), he can still keep pace with the spellcasters, and it isn't more complicated than figuring out what kind of equipment he should have for his level and translating them into equivalent bonuses. I believe this is what Iron Heroes does, although I don't have the book.

Roughly speaking, yes. IH does it SLIGHTLY differently from just giving out flat compensatory bonuses a la Vow of Poverty; PCs get two "traits," more and better feats, "charged" class abilities via tokens, and more skill points. IH's save bonuses and base defense bonus system are, however, a straight-up numerical substitute for item-based bonuses. Some people may like the fact that IH tries to be a bit more "flavorful" in its substitution strategy, others may not. Having run a system that did exactly what you mentioned ("figuring out what kind of equipment [a PC] should have for his level and translating them into equivalent bonuses") previous to purchasing IH, I'd say that I like IH's method a bit better. However, it does deviate a bit from straight D&D, and pretty much requires that you chuck out any spell or item that confers straight bonuses. Thus, it's a bit wonkier in application, which many DMs simply may not like.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Even if he's not playing your technical definition of D&D, IH does not necessarily do lower magic item game of D&D better than a lower magic item game of D&D.

Different systems, different pros and cons of going either way.

I respectfully disagree, although I acknowledge that my entire source of disagreement may be a matter of semantics. IH does "necessarily" do a lower-item-game "better" than core rules D&D. The simple reason is that IH can be used "straight out of the box" to run a lower-magic-item (or no-magic-item) D&D game, with all other elements of the game (monsters, modules, etc.) being static. D&D cannot be used "straight out of the box" without at least substantial adherence to the wealth-by-level guidelines. Among the things you have to tweak to use it thusly:

1) Inter-class balance, specifically for the fighter, monk, ranger, and paladin, which are up the creek big-time without items compared to the primary spellcasters.

2) The CR system. This basically has to be revised entirely, not only to push monster CRs up in order to hit fair XP awards, but also to correct for monster abilities that are not particularly powerful against PCs with appropriate items, but become much more powerful against PCs without those items.

3) Module design. Modules, especially mid- to high-level ones, assume particular abilities and bonus sets on the part of the PCs. Without items, most PCs (except the straight casters) won't have these.

Now, if what you're saying is that "I can run a low-item D&D game just as well as IH can help me to do it," that's a statement of your mastery of the game and ability to tweak the system. I don't doubt it. However, Bastoche's analogy of the running shoes vs. sandals comes to mind.

 

[Bastoche]

Wow. Under these definitions of the games I guess I have never played D&D or GURPS despite all the times I thought I was. Despite playing lots of games with the GURPS system I was never a GURPS player as you describe them. Despite playing and running a lot of games with the 3e D&D rules, I was rarely if ever playing D&D as you describe it (our group was rarely exactly five people).

What bizaare technical definitions you have of RPGs.

Even if he's not playing your technical definition of D&D, IH does not necessarily do lower magic item game of D&D better than a lower magic item game of D&D.

Different systems, different pros and cons of going either way.

If you were playing as I describe then you were "drifting". These definitions are not bizare and they're not mine. If you feel open-minded about RPGs, take a look at Ron Edwards' (creator of "sorceror" articles on the forge.

 

[Hussar]

Good read Bastoche. I'm not sure if I completely agree, but certainly worth reading. And, considering I've said similar things in the past, although perhaps not taking as far as you have, I can definitely see your point.

One question though. Why GRUPS?